• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


JColvin last won the day on August 14

JColvin had the most liked content!

About JColvin

  • Rank
    Forum Moderator
  • Birthday April 22

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Pullman, WA

Recent Profile Visitors

4,920 profile views
  1. As an easter egg that I just learned, such a thing is already planned for the next release
  2. I realize that I can't possibly know the full story on both sides of the equation here and wasn't aware of any of this until reading this today, but I will have to ask that this discussion be taken to the messaging side of things rather than posting on the Forum. Thank you, JColvin
  3. But in this particular case, just props to @attila since as far as I know, WaveForms 2015 == attila.
  4. Hello, All of Digilent's system boards, including the Zybo board, are designed to be a development platform where any number of designs and applications can be implemented on the board. Because various applications can be added to and removed to the system board at potentially any point in time, we have designed our boards to be very robust and last for many years of use so that they can continually be used in your application as it continues to evolve. Unfortunately, because of this, it is impossible for us to create a test that adequately covers all possible use and stress cases that the board could encounter simultaneously. Consequently we do not have any reliability data for our system boards nor will we be able to accurately produce reliability data that correlates to your specific application. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, JColvin
  5. Hello @javila, At this point in time there isn't a huge difference between the Digilent Core and the chipKIT Core, but we (Digilent) now maintain and update all of our associated board files on the Digilent Core rather than the chipKIT Core. I didn't see anything that indicates that the board is fried from the verbose file, but your new output suggests (as you likely noted) that the bootloader isn't present on the new board. This can happen if you've ever programmed the Wi-FIRE with MPLABX or directly uploaded a different .hex file or something similar. I don't know for certain if this is the case (I'll get this confirmed), but if that is the case, you would need to reload the bootloader back onto the board with MPLABX and a programmer such as the chipKIT PGM or a PICkit 3. There's a nice tutorial on how to do that here with the bootloader file that you would need on the right hand side of the WF32 Resource Center. Let us know if you have any more questions. Thanks, JColvin
  6. Hello, It appears that @praveen intended to respond but apparently the post was submitted as a report rather than a reply. This is what they said: Hello , Thank you for your response. We are designing a Card which will interface with Nexys Video Board. We would like to know, how much clearance to be maintained on our board to place FMC Mating connector. Or at least provide us, Step Or DXF file of Nexys video board for our reference. Thank you. Regards, Praveen. Thanks, JColvin
  7. Hello @JohnBee, I apologize for not making sure that you received a response back much earlier in the year. To answer your question, you need to have C1+ and C1- on opposite sides of the resistor so that the voltage difference on the two sides of the resistor is observed. The resistor itself will need to be attached to the voltage source (Vcc) and ground (Gnd). As attila mentioned, the analog inputs are differential, so the value of Channel 1 on the Scope view inside of the WaveForms 2015 software will be the calculated value of (C1+ minus C1-). So, if C1- is connected to ground, this turns the equation into (C1+ minus 0V) for a positive valued result. Thus, when you add the custom math channel (by clicking on the Add Channel button with the green plus sign on the right hand side of the WaveForms GUI and select "Math: custom" and choose to divide C1 by the value of the resistor (either the nomimal value or as determined by a DMM), you will end up getting a positive current result. However, if instead C1- was connected to the positive side of the resistor and C1+ was connected to the grounded side of the resistor, WaveForms 2015 would measure the scope input as a negative voltage, so when you calculate the current via {I = V/R}, you will end up with a negative current value. You can check out a picture version of this in the Forum Gallery here. Naturally, the current itself will always flow in the same direction with positive current flow from the more higher voltage to lower voltage (and the electrons 'flowing' from a lower voltage to a more positive voltage), but we can observe a negative current by (in a sense) changing our measurement perspective. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, JColvin
  8. From the album Forum photos

    The resulting current i based on where the differential channel ends are located in relation to the resistor.
  9. FPGAs are inherently very versatile with many different sorts of features packed into a particular package and architecture. So why not have some Digilent FPGA boards that predominately use such features as opposed to others, rather than having multiple options that are all slightly different but at the same time almost the same? Here are some ideas that have been brought up to me: Low end Artix board that focuses on the PCIe capabilities of the 7-series chip Board that focuses on video applications without a bunch of extra switches and no VGA. Who today uses a monitor that only offers a VGA port? Differential high speed connectors. LVCMOS and LVTTL are not the end-all be-all IO standards; other standards exist and as technology gets better, lower and lower voltages will become more common place. Boards (in particular the Analog Discovery and EE Board) with USB 3.0 capabilities for high-speed serial data streams. Granted Type C connectors and USB 3.0 are not ubquitous as of yet, but wait another 5-10 years and they will be if something better and cheaper doesn't come out. Turns out I don't have a 5th idea off the top of my head Any further ideas or feedback in general is welcome although I suppose I would ask that questions and comments sharing a theme with "Why does product X suck? Make it suck less" be kept to a minimum here. If you feel the need to rant, we have a subForum for that: https://forum.digilentinc.com/forum/32-technical-based-off-topic-discussions/ Thanks, JColvin
  10. One thing that was brought up to me is that currently in our store and Wiki there is no way to nicely narrow down the choice of which FPGA board should be chosen for a particular task, based on the needs of having a variety of features to fill. An ideal situation would be to have something like Newegg or Digikey style where you could check boxes of what sort of features you would like and narrow down your available options from there but from my understanding, the website store does not support such a feature. But maybe it does? I'll have to ask to find out for sure. Presuming it doesn't, I imagine having a reduced feature table that can be directly embedded into the landing page for FPGAs that lists a variety of useful features and which boards have them would be nice. There would also be a link to the Wiki where a sortable table (by BRAM size, logic cells, IO pins, etc) could be viewed in a more friendly fashion. The major roadblock that I foresee is that such a table would be quite large considering the number of FPGA boards we offer and the number of features that an FPGA dev board could have. Certainly, we could be picky in what is presented on the store page, but what options would people want to see that is the most relevant? Additionally/alternatively, it is possible to create tags for each FPGA board, but that can become rapidly overwhelming, especially when a number of boards will inevitably share a similar set of tags and other products (MCU's, etc) also start sharing those tags so I'm uncertain if that would curate a better experience. Any thoughts from the few people that happen to read this thread?
  11. So, the phrasing is rough around the edges and with a tone of (not unwarranted) frustration, but I would like to think this is customer feedback, correct @zygot? Maybe in the future such feedback (from anybody, myself included) whether it be a wishlist, product idea, or technical recommendation, could go in the Suggestions and Feedback subsection of the Forum? I plan on posting there after this to make a few suggestions myself that D@n brought up to me (things like selection guides/tables). As for the question, speaking as a non-layout/hardware-design engineer, I imagine that there isn't anything technical that is stopping us from creating a high speed differential port, Pmod or otherwise. Again, as a guess, I imagine right now it's the precedent of almost always making Pmod ports at 3.3 V CMOS because that is the IO Standard that Pmods have classically used for over 10 years (and Digilent sells Pmods so we support our own products). We've also only recently (on a relative scale of course) started going into the non-Academic, "trainer-style" boards that Digilent has their roots in (which I believe Clint Cole mentions in the Amp Hour podcast for anybody who happens to not have listened to it and is interested in), so I also imagine the phrase old habits die hard applies here as well to a certain extent, with relation to branching out into other uses of our boards. Are there other things that factor all of this? Probably; it's one thing to do a production run on boards that perform in certain ways and another to sell them and without any precedent or previous 'forerunners' of our own to show appealing evidence, I imagine it's hard to get the right approval. But I'm not in those meetings, so what do I know? If whoever is reading this has further questions or feedback, I'll be making a thread on the Suggestions and Feedback forum for just that to help make sure we do not detract away from the goal answering a user's question. Thanks, JColvin
  12. @Notarobot, You have the community super-star status because you have passed the 100 post mark. As @zygot has pointed out on a different thread, this can seem to indicate that one has a dizzying level of competence (which I will be the first to point out that I personally do not have a dizzying level of competence although I currently have the highest number of posts out of anybody on this Forum, but that's merely because I've spent more hours on the Forum than anybody and joined back in September 2014). What I think should be done (and obviously haven't done despite zygot suggesting it months ago XD) would be to assign new labels to the various post count milestones that don't give a misleading connentation (although the connentation generally isn't wrong) and leave it up to the individual to decide a particular users competency level. As a general clarification; I am not opposed to differing/unpopular/harsh-but-true/whatever-you-want-to-call-them opinions appearing on our Forum. The big thing I (and other Digilent people) want to make sure of is that any rants/other-synonyms are in better suited locations as opposed to confusing or moving away from the original users question, hence the origin of this thread to begin with. I do think it would be good to perhaps have this in a different sort of Forum than "FPGA". I'll create one and move this thread as well as changing the milestone labels. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, JColvin
  13. @mihai5, Unfortunately, there is no solved button in the header of the thread that I can see to enable or make exist. The closest thing that I could think of would be to change the title of the post to include "[solved]" or something like that; tedious and frustrating to be sure, but the current reality. Edit: looks like on the main Embedded Linux page, it looks like it has that green check mark to show it is solved, so that might work out. Thanks, JColvin
  14. Hello @mihai5, Generally, if you are the original creator of the thread, there should be a grayed out checkmark next to the post you want to mark as "best answer/response". It would be on the left hand side, fairly close to your name on the post in question. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, JColvin
  15. Hello @zygot, I'm not able to offer any guarantee of things happening since I'm not part of the appropriate meetings, but I personally think that having a section of the board dedicated to differentially paired GPIO would be a great idea; I know you certainly aren't the only customer to suggest this on the Forum since there have been requests that have come through other channels as well. I do have a couple of implementation questions though; how would you imagine these pins are available to the end user? I think in the past (I don't have any sort of confirmation on this) that this was done through an FMC or a FX2 connector, but those sort of connectors inherently limit the general accessibility to those differential pairs in terms of actually connecting to those pins. Do you feel that having those sort of connectors (or a different connector that is classically dedicated towards those sort of presumably high speed signals) is a detriment to end users? The reason I ask is because (as you have inevitably noticed) we try to make our boards accessible to a broad range of users which does impose some constraints on the end board. The other question(s) which ties in to the above one is who is the target audience for this board and what other sort of components would you want to see on the board? Would there be a bunch of embedded user I/O on the board (switches, LEDs, and the like)? IIRC, a number of the Artix 7 chips have PCIe capabilities; would these be available on the board? Naturally, if the board is chock full of differential IO and other high speed IO (what is high speed in this case) it will be a different sort of product than what Digilent currently offers at this point in time. Personally I'm not opposed to it; I think there is market out there (as you have shown) for a low-cost/reasonably priced board that is focused on differentially paired IO and other high speed lines to offer a different sort of development environment that what is currently offered. Certainly it won't be for everybody, but at the same time I'm pretty sure that FPGA development boards of any kind are in-as-of-themselves a niche market. The interesting bit that I imagine would come from the Digilent side of things is being able to properly support such a platform since in a sense it would be closer to the all-in-one product solution much like our instrumentation line (like the Analog Discovery 2) side of the spectrum as opposed to a more open development platform where a far wider variety of applications can be achieved. But, those are just thoughts (and some questions) from a guy who writes documentation for all of the non-FPGA platforms; take it as you will. Thanks, JColvin